UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

teachers must abide by the school district's curriculum...i.e. follow the science and not one of a multitude of religious beliefs.

Link: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-teacher-refuse-to-teach-certain-materials-in-class-if-heshe-feels-the-curriculum-infringes-on-hisher-personal-beliefs/

My understanding is that the teacher did not have a problem with teaching evolution theory, he had a problem calling it a fact…….but it sounds like you two agree on that, so I guess that Idon’t understand your angst.

Creationism is just misinformation, which - call me crazy - I don’t think has a place in schools.

Of course evolution does not threaten a secure faith. But there are lots and lots of fundamentally insecure believers out there who can tolerate no dissent.

And it is you who brought up Creationism, not me. Regarding my faith, evolution has no impact. It is a very strong theory and the best available based on the facts at present. Given the DNA evidence, I would not consider arguing against it. But yes, it really IS a theory.
Does this shake your liberal faith?

Why are the most anti science people liberal? Shall we shut down all research for your zealotry now?

Again, I am very glad Einstein was not shut down by people like you when he threw a wrench in the comfy little world of Newtonian Physics.

(no message)

Link: https://youtu.be/bOCOMYGIfUQ

humans, do you? If you do, of course the teacher can refuse to teach that.

(no message)

(no message)

The biggest problem facing democracy is that utter dumb fucks can vote.

lived about million years ago. Humans and apes have completed different evolutionary paths. This is just science 101. You may believe science, but you don't know science. You take science as religion. That's all. But people like you can easily be fooled and manipulated by science pastor, aka Mr "I am science".

and external links.

Too bad that Darwin didn't have the benefit of Genetic Science...he'd have been even firmer about evolution in his writings.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

(no message)

'argument'...while "Apes" and "Hominids" are different evolutionary branches...we are indeed strongly related (see link..."Dryopithecus) and that's what most believers in evolution think of and simplify as "Apes"...again, we have a great deal of similar DNA and this supports the science of evolution...as opposed to "Creationism".

With that said...are you an "Evolutionist" or a "Creationist"?


Link: https://byjus.com/biology/evolution-by-stages/

badly and misled so many people. The march of progress. I used this example to press the thread creator to be specific on what he was talking about. A slogan on subject line doesn't mean anything.

Chris clearly is scientific ignorant, doesn't know what I was talking about. So are you. Science is specialized knowledge. I have no desire to expose you guys ignorance on science. It's unfair game to you. But you guys just asked for it. WTF.


Link: https://sites.wustl.edu/prosper/on-the-origins-of-the-march-of-progress/

"Humans and monkeys are both primates. But humans are not descended from monkeys or any other primate living today. WE DO SHARE A COMMON APE ANCESTOR with chimpanzees. It lived between 8 and 6 million years ago." (emphasis mine)
---------------------

This is what most people use as a reference...don't be so picayunish...


Link: https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/frequently-asked-questions

I was talking about. The image has nothing to do semantics. We don't know the common ancestor looked like. They extinct before humans and apes. That image clearly reflects misunderstanding from the artist and misled so many people including Chris and you. But dishonesty is worse than ignorance.

just acknowledge the statement from a highly reputable source...and move on to answering my question...are you an 'Evolutionist" or "Creationist"?...not all that hard, unless you're somehow ashamed to reveal it.

Dishonesty is #1 enemy of science. Stop talking about science if you don't have honesty. Go back to talk about the dirty politics.

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=111138

(no message)

(no message)

starting from you. Misunderstanding science is worse.

First of all lets get your simplistic and inaccurate generalizations out of the way with me:
wrt evolution, I have no problems. I think it explains many things, and it is the most solid theory. You probably assume that it somehow conflicts with my religious beliefs, but it does not at all. But I also understand that it is still appropriately referred to as a "theory" because it doesn't explain everything. Even Newtonian physics did not explain everything. Thank goodness there weren't liberals in power to shut down scientific debate when Einstein introduced his theories on relativity! What really appears to be the case is that YOU feel that your religious beliefs are being challenged by the questioning of aspects of evolution. You are SO insecure that you can't even engage with people who present the other side of things.

Now, it's laughable that you would place mRNA immunization shots in the realm of certitude as evolution. Again, you and your liberal brethren have opposed debate from the start - even back when there was not sufficient study available as it turns out from Big Pharma testimony in Europe.
As you know, I have never been an antivaxxer, but nonetheless, to the liberals here I am perceived as such because I do not share their religious zealotry about it nor do I share the willingness to buy in on all of the politically motivated, nonsensical recommendations such as Shut Down or general masking with innadequate maks/inappropriate usage . Personally, I think that we can do a lot better than the shots being given right now....but it is harder to improve things when we have zealots such as you who prevent rational discourse and scientific debate.

Global warming? (I assume you want the more generalized Climate Change so that you won't ever be proven wrong at any point, right?). Again, this is a religious issue for you. You can brook no debate, yet this is the softest of all sciences....sociology/psychology/climatology/etc.
My take of Climate Change is not whether it exists but on whether the proposed nonsensical strategies with political side benefits will make any difference. Again, your own zealotry prevents you from carrying on serious debate here.

That teacher should absolutely be expected to teach about the theory of evolution. But he absolutely should NOT be forced to lie about it being absolute fact that is fully settled.

(no message)

(no message)

Not sure what this refers to. Thx

(no message)

(no message)

Pickering balancing test is a covered in my most year law school curriculum.

Garcetti v. Ceballos Is more current.


Link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/596/garcetti-v-ceballos

(no message)

“when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”

(no message)